Wow....interesting question. I need some beer and pretzels for this one. Even thought they lost the SB that 83' team was a machine and IMO the best Redskin team ever fielded.

I guess you could have Moss as a 3rd receiver. He wouldn't bump Monk, because he's Art freakin' Monk, and the numbers can't support sitting Charlie Brown. His numbers would project to being close to Alvin Garrett (if Garrett started). Moss would fit in with the Smurfs.

Moss - 09'
Catches -70 Yards- 902 Average - 12.9 TD - 3

Charlie Brown - 83'
Catches - 78 Yards - 1225 Average - 15.7 TD - 8

Alvin Garrett - 83'
Catches - 25 Yards - 332 Average - 13.3 TD - 1

I loved Darryl Grant but you might bump him for Haynesworth. You couldn't cut Grant completely because Haynesworth would never finish 16 games. Butz would stay since he had 11.5 sacks that season. Man....I don't know if you'd break up the Grant Butz DT combo after all. They worked so well together.

I can't do this. Here is a link to some stats from the 83' team. The numbers are impressive. Riggo had 24 TDs that season! Theismann threw 29 TD's. THEY WERE A MACHINE I TELL YA....A MACHINE.

As good as Carter's been I don't think he's quite at Dexter Manley's level. Nobody even in Monk's neighborhood-he's one of my all-time favorite Redskins, along with Darrel Green-little did we know how good he'd wind up being(!).

I may think of some more-one thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that players now are somewhat larger, faster and stronger than players 25+ years ago were and that the stats accrued by the players on the '83 Redskins may not have been as great if they were time-machined into the present and put up against some of the physical specimens that haunt the NFL now.

0000

I'm giving it a 2-4 year window. Looking for improvement in all areas. Redskins, you're on the clock.

I may think of some more-one thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that players now are somewhat larger, faster and stronger than players 25+ years ago were and that the stats accrued by the players on the '83 Redskins may not have been as great if they were time-machined into the present and put up against some of the physical specimens that haunt the NFL now.

I here this argument a lot. While we know a time-machine travel scenario is just for our amusement, it is a relative situation. The 83 team put up great stats against some of the best the NFL had ever seen to that point. The players in that era were bigger, stronger and faster than the player ten years prior. Could you imagine if Dexter Manly played as a part of the Over the Hill gang in SB VII with his abilities? He was a freak of nature at his time, just like LT. Would LT be nearly as good now? I doubt it, but against the players who were the best in their time, he was above and beyond the best of them all. It's relative.

Now as far as the players on the 83 team as opposed to the players on the 2009 team, provided we take into account the physical abilities would be relative to the era regarding size and speed, I am not sure I would want any of them from 2009. The 83 team was one of the best "teams" the NFL has ever seen. A couple of freak mistakes by the players and coaching staff and that team got themselves into a hole the Raiders would not let them dig out of in SB XVIII. Not sure I would want to break up the chemistry we had that year.

When I think about this scenario, all I can think about is Joe Gibbs in an interview stating, "I want to thank players like Otis Wonsley!" Gibbs knew it was players like him who just did their job that helped make his teams successful not all-stars at every position.

Wasn't the secondary the weak link on the '83 team? If Tony Peters and Jeris White had stayed from the '82 team, we probably go 16-0 (although not sure if they could've prevented what happened in Tampa). Had to instead rely on that rookie scrub Darrell Green

Wasn't the secondary the weak link on the '83 team? If Tony Peters and Jeris White had stayed from the '82 team, we probably go 16-0 (although not sure if they could've prevented what happened in Tampa). Had to instead rely on that rookie scrub Darrell Green

Not at all.. they were +45 in turnover ratio as a defense, the majority of them interceptions. That is a record I think may never be beaten.

Mark Murphy came down with so many tipped balls it seemed like at least one every week.

I'd say the one guy I'd replace from that team with a guy from this team it would be Todd Collins as the holder. I never am confortable with the starting quarterback as the holder. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Not at all.. they were +45 in turnover ratio as a defense, the majority of them interceptions. That is a record I think may never be beaten.

Mark Murphy came down with so many tipped balls it seemed like at least one every week.

I'd say the one guy I'd replace from that team with a guy from this team it would be Todd Collins as the holder. I never am confortable with the starting quarterback as the holder. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

~Bang

Actually the secondary was the weak link that year. Remember the pearl harbor crew? They earned that nickname because they got bombed so much and were unable to stop teams from throwing on us. All season long, that was our weakness, and boy did it come out in the SB.

I maintain the '91 team was the best Redskins team of all. They were a complete team with no significant weaknesses unlike the '83 team. I could accept the '83 offense as the best for the Redskins, but the '91 wasn't much worse, and I maintain it's the most true Joe Gibbs offense we had (what he'd wanted to run from the beginning but couldn't until he got the right personnel in place). The '91 team dominated as a complete team, much moreso than '83.

Actually the secondary was the weak link that year. Remember the pearl harbor crew? They earned that nickname because they got bombed so much and were unable to stop teams from throwing on us. All season long, that was our weakness, and boy did it come out in the SB.

I maintain the '91 team was the best Redskins team of all. They were a complete team with no significant weaknesses unlike the '83 team. I could accept the '83 offense as the best for the Redskins, but the '91 wasn't much worse, and I maintain it's the most true Joe Gibbs offense we had (what he'd wanted to run from the beginning but couldn't until he got the right personnel in place). The '91 team dominated as a complete team, much moreso than '83.

I see you working and I can’t disagree on a lot of levels, but for the sake of argument…..

The reason the 83’ team got thrown on so much was other teams were always behind. Certainly the Raiders were built around a long ball offense so that didn’t help once we got to the SB. Still, if the offense would have kept focus prior to the game (I’m being kind here, we’ve all read the stories) I think they would have beaten the Raiders easily; they had already beaten them earlier that season. If they had won the SB that team would be thought of as one of the all time greats.

It’s hard to find much fault with the 91’ though. That offensive line was one of the most dominant I’ve ever seen.

Man, I’d love to be having a conversation like this about a Redskin team a little more recent. 91’ was a long time ago.

0000

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
H. L. Mencken

It’s hard to find much fault with the 91’ though. That offensive line was one of the most dominant I’ve ever seen.

I still wish we'd played our starters in the final game that year. 33% of our sacks that season came in that one game as the backups played. 6 sacks in 15 games, 9 in 16. While 9 is still amazing, 6 would've been astounding. Truly amazing line play.

Burnerâ€™s Burning Questions: Free Agency, Mock Drafts, Camps, Roster Predictions, 2018
Greetings from BBQ to everyone in BGO land and guests from social media â€“ we hope you become a member here.
...